2008, the gift that keeps on giving. The biggest gift of the year is awareness or exposure, depending upon how you look at it.

FAIR claims:

FAIR, the national media watch group, has been offering well-documented criticism of media bias and censorship since 1986. We work to invigorate the First Amendment by advocating for greater diversity in the press and by scrutinizing media practices that marginalize public interest, minority and dissenting viewpoints. As an anti-censorship organization, we expose neglected news stories and defend working journalists when they are muzzled. As a progressive group, FAIR believes that structural reform is ultimately needed to break up the dominant media conglomerates, establish independent public broadcasting and promote strong non-profit sources of information.

High-minded though it may sound, it's hogwash and either awareness informed us of that or FAIR exposed itself. (If it was the latter, swear out a complaint and get them off the streets.) If you're not getting it, they've started "Election Watch 2008" because, goodness knows, they can't be distracted by actual stories. Nor can they report or even opine. "Election Watch 2008" is just the same link-fest they've long offered. And, naturally, it exists to lift up Barack (like a bra?) and to spit on John McCain. All other candidates are left out, hence, their revelation that they aren't high-minded let alone, in fact, "fair."

Just another sell-out who had a tag sale on beliefs. For reference, this is FAIR:

The Task Force commends the private Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) for helping to foster a continuing debate ethic in presidential campaigns, and for creating a political climate in which general election presidential debates are considered an essential part of the political process. However, the CPD's January 6 announcement that it will require presidential candidates to post a level of support of at least 15 percent in national public opinion polls before they may join the debates is deeply problematic. For the following reasons, we object to the CPD's participation criteria:
* The CPD places the cart before the horse by basing the exclusion of outsider candidates on the preferences of a public that has not yet seen or heard from these candidates in a debate. At the time of the debates many Americans remain uncommitted to a single candidate.
* The 15 percent rule is both arbitrary and too high. There is no basis in law for the 15 percent threshold.
* The American people do not agree with the CPD. A recent poll revealed that a majority of Americans believe that the CPD's 15 percent threshold is inappropriate.
* Polls often underestimate the role of Independents. Polling firms regularly base their opinion surveys on "likely voters" as determined by past voting practice. Such determinations ignore the possibility that the debate may, in fact, create new likely voters.
The CPD bases its decision on the belief that the purpose of the general election debates is to contrast for the voters the two candidates who stand the best chance of winning the presidency. We believe formal debates serve greater purposes. When done well, formal debates can advance and crystallize the ideas and issues that are important to the American public. They can provide meaningful political discourse, and can force the candidates to address the issues about which Americans care most deeply.

You may be nodding and saying, "Good for FAIR."

Stop. That's from 2000's "THE APPLESEED CITIZENS' TASK FORCE ON FAIR DEBATES:
A BLUEPRINT FOR FAIR AND OPEN PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES IN 2000." In 2000, they believed in open debates where all candidates could compete. In 2008? Not a peep.

Not a word. Not an action alert. Nothing.

Zilch.

Because there's nothing fair about FAIR and because FAIR has whored themselves out for Obama's campaign.

Back in 2000, they could (and did) finger point. Here's BIG SELLOUT Jeffy Cohen from his "Nader, Buchanan and the Debates:"

A revealing national poll of likely voters, released on April 10, found Green Party candidate Ralph Nader in third place behind George W. Bush and Al Gore -- and ahead of prospective Reform candidate Pat Buchanan. So which alternative-party aspirant appeared all over national TV the next night? It wasn't Nader.
Asked to give his views as a candidate on issues from trade to economics to Elian, Buchanan held forth at length on "Decision 2000 with Andrea Mitchell" (MSNBC), "News with Brian Williams" (CNBC/MSNBC) and "Special Report with Brit Hume" (Fox News Channel). Hume referred to "all three presidential candidates," meaning Bush, Gore and Buchanan-- no mention of Nader.
Despite his extreme right-wing views, Buchanan has long been well treated by the supposedly "liberal media." The first pundit with a perch on national television seven days a week, he's been propelled into presidential politics by CNN for three different campaigns. Although he's been running for over a year this time, he received only 3.6 percent support in the new Zogby poll.
Nader, who announced his full-throttle presidential campaign less than two months ago, received 5.7 percent in the poll. In Western states, Nader received 13 percent support, compared to Gore's 30 percent. Yet public citizen Nader, a widely respected figure in American life for decades, is generally ignored by the same national media outlets and pundits that regularly include Buchanan in their coverage of the presidential race.
Imagine what Nader's poll numbers would be if his candidacy weren't so ignored by national media.

See, in 2000, fairness mattered to FAIR. Today? Not so much.

Some might wrongly point to more recent examples. For example, August 4, 2006, FAIR sent out an action alert demanding that debates be 'opened.' That wasn't about any ethical belief, just more of their Hillary Hatred on display (the same hatred that explains why the organization's weekly radio show CounterSpin called out sexism once -- in a single sentence -- the entire primary campaign). See, Jonathan Tasini was their boy and they wanted Hillary to debate him. That's all they cared about. They didn't care about fairness. (They proved it by refusing to demand that Howie Hawkins, Green candidate for the same Senate seat, be invited to debates.)

So 2006 was really when they began playing favorites and gave up all pretense of being fair.

Again, you can see it as awareness (of how unethical they are) or you can see it as them exposing themselves.

But 2008 has been the gift that just keeps giving. Over and over.

One after another, every left outlet rushes for their turn at the plate where they demonstrate that they actually don't give a damn about democracy or fairness. They, not unlike Rush Limbaugh, just want their way and they will use any tactic to try to get their way.

FAIR is now Rush Limbaugh. About as factual and about as honest.

2008 is the year 'independent' media decided to do breast strokes in a toilet bowl. And no one's proven to be more adapt at dabbing sewer water behind their ears than FAIR.

MSNBC resorts to rank sexism? Can't call 'em out! Jeffy has friends there! And he knows he's getting back in! And, yeah, it's nothing but a propaganda mill, but hey, it can be FAIR's propaganda mill!

It was never about honesty, it was never about fairness. It was always a bunch of rejects stamping their feet and insisting, "My way!"

So they covered for Davy S and Keithie O and everyone else. They ignored sexism, they blacked out Barack's use of homophobia in South Carolina (and won't call out the homophobia going on in California as part of his campaign).

They care about homophobia . . . when Republicans use it. And they care about sexism . . . when Republicans are using it.

If it weren't for situational ethics, FAIR wouldn't have any ethics left.

Again, call it your own awareness or their own desire to expose themselves.

And that's why they avoid realities about the Iraq War especially with regards to what Barack's (ever-changing) position on it is.

If they gave a damn about ending the illegal war, they could demand that Ralph Nader and Cynthia McKinney (two candidates dedicated to ending the illegal war) be included in the debates. But, oh no, Cynthia and Ralph might do what Mike Gravel did in 2007 -- point out some harsh truths about Barack.

That really was Mike Gravel's 'crime' that got him kicked out of the debates. He was spoiling the high on Barack. Which is why he wasn't allowed to respond in debates, why he wasn't allowed to expand (in his limited time) on a question (no other candidate was ever told no, you must answer just what we asked) and why, in the middle of answering a question, a 'moderator' talked over him. (On the last, Gravel was explaining how, yes, Barack took big money.)

FAIR looked the other way throughout all of that. They never said a word.

Mike Gravel's 'crime' was not being John Edwards -- acting like he was pining for a Date With Barack.

It was never about ending the illegal war, it was never about democracy, it was never about journalistic standards. It was about spoiled kids stomping their feet trying to get their way. This year they think they have and exist as a 'media check' only when their wet dream gets called out.

No one could have damaged their reputations more than they themselves did.

By their actions, you will know them as they really are. Some might call them hypocrites but the truth is they're probably more like "Napoleans" in the sense of Ani DiFranco's "Napolean."

In a little while, they'll try to rush to a high ground but no one will believe them because they sold out everything they allegedly believed in. And they sold out to a corporatist, big-money-backed, War Hawk.

The illegal war will drag on even longer as a result of their actions and, years from now, when people look back, FAIR will be lumped in with the New York Times as an outlet that created the space for that illegal war. They have no respect left and they'd grasp that looking in the mirror if they hadn't covered their mirrors with Barack stickers.

It's over, I'm done writing songs about love
There's a war going on
So I'm holding my gun with a strap and a glove
And I'm writing a song about war
And it goes
Na na na na na na na
I hate the war
Na na na na na na na
I hate the war
Na na na na na na na
I hate the war
Oh oh oh oh
-- "I Hate The War" (written by Greg Goldberg, on The Ballet's Mattachine!)

Last Thursday, ICCC's number of US troops killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war was 4168. Tonight? 4172.  Just Foreign Policy lists 1,267,401 as the number of Iraqis killed since the start of the illegal the same number as last Thursday. Funny, I remember many, many Iraqi deaths being reported in the last seven days.

The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.

iraq
i hate the war
the ballet

Today the US military announced: "A Multi-National Division - North Soldier was killed by a suicide bomber while conducting operations in Diyala, Iraq Sept. 24." The announcement brings the total number of US service members killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war to 4172 with 21 for the month thus far.

Alissa J. Rubin's "Ambush Kills 20 Iraqi Men Searching For Weapons" (New York Times) covers some of yesterday's violence with an emphasis on the Diyala Province attack that saw 20 Iraqis -- "a joint force of National Police officers and members of the local Awakening Council" -- killed in an attack and cites "Awakening" Council member Muhammad al-Dulaimi explaining that "most of the military operations" in Diyala Province "were done with air support from the Americans" as if to explain why the Iraqi forces are still dependent upon the US. Rubin also notes "reports of widespread cyberattacks on the Web sites of Shiite clearics. An Iranian news agency reported that about 200 sites had been hacked."

Corinne Reilly and Hussein Kadhim cover the Diyala Province attack for McClatchy with "Al Qaida gunmen kill dozens of Iraqi policemen in Diyala province:"

Police said the battalion entered the village thinking it was safe because the area had recently been raided and cleared.
But soon after the battalion arrived, the gunmen opened fire in a wooded area. It's unclear how many attackers were involved. None of them was killed, officials said.
"They were shooting from all sides," a policeman who survived the attack said. "It was like we were fighting ghosts." The policeman told officials that three high-ranking police officers were captured and executed.


In the US presidential race, an important question is raised. Sarah notes this from Team Nader:

Greg Kafoury: Who Will Represent the Rest of Us?

Senator McCain has suspended his campaign in order to return to Washington to work on the proposed bailout situation. McCain said, "We must meet as Americans, not as Democrats or Republicans, and we must meet until this crisis is resolved." The Nader campaign wishes to point out that more than a third of registered voters are neither Republicans nor Democrats, and that Ralph Nader is registering between 5 and 8 percent in many major states, including swing states. Is Senator McCain suggesting that only Republicans or Democrats are entitled to be heard on the most important domestic political crises in the last 70 years? If the future of all Americans is at stake in the current crisis, shouldn't all Americans have representatives at the table? We suggest that Mr. Nader, former Congressman Barr and any others who show significant levels of popular support should be included in any gatherings that are convened to resolve this crisis.

Further, the fact that the Presidential debates scheduled for this Friday can be simply canceled by the Republican nominee shows the extent to which the debate commission is nothing but a creature of the two major parties, designed largely for the purpose of excluding third parties and independent candidacies form having a voice in our most vital public forum. We call upon Senators McCain and Obama to recognize that we are all in this together, and to give representatives of the entire American electorate a seat at the table and a voice in the debates.

Greg Kafoury is a trial lawyer and political activist in Portland, Oregon.

ShareThisShareThis

And still on the meltdown, KeShawn notes this from Team Nader:

Wise Guys, Shock and Awe, and the Great Depression Sequel

The top of the news is still dominated by fears of Great Depression II. No mention of hope fever, field stripping moose, or lipstick.

I'm sure that the Democratic and Republican presidential candidates are tirelessly working behind the scenes to insure a better deal for voters. Yet, from the ghost-like details of their bailout and accountability plan, it seems more like they are in the Federal Witness Protection Program.

To be fair, there was a little item reporting that Senator Obama thought the bailout needed a more "muscular regulatory" component. A cool observation. John McCain has gotten deregulation religion, and he is angry -- angry, my friends, demanding a 9.11-type commission to get to the bottom of this, dammit.

Sneaking a glimpse of Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson -- heralded as "King Henry" on the cover of Newsweek -- testifying before the Senate reminded me of Godfather II. But this time, it is not Michael Corleone at the table.

The new wise guys of Wall Street have brought their remorseless schemes from the corporate syndicates to Washington –the taxpayers -- for a $700 billion bailout, which some predict will likely balloon to $ 1 trillion.

It's kind of like when things get tight and the wise guys need more money. There is no real fretting, they just shake down the neighborhood -- customers, neighborhood businesses, ordinary citizens, and everything is fine. Like in Good Fellas, "Just pay me!" Hauntingly similar to William Greider, writing in The Nation, predicting that this bailout will be one the great swindles in American history. Something you can tell your grandchildren about.

To switch analogies, the media atmosphere driven by the Bush Administration is starting to feel like a 9.11 moment, complete with CNN alerts (minus the flags) that bipartisan and passive compliance with its dictums is urgent to save the nation from catastrophic collapse. No time for annoying questions about the fine print, executive accountability, and certainly don't bring up that little quaint document called the Constitution.

Senator Mitch McConnell bravely warned the skeptics on Capitol Hill, "When there's a fire in your kitchen threatening to burn down your home, you don't want someone stopping the firefighters on the way and demanding they hand out smoke detectors first or lecturing you about the hazards of keeping paint in the basement." The good senator from Kentucky is a great one with metaphors, but rather than firefighters I think arsonists would be a better one to suit this burning house. Still, there is a "shock and awe" feel to King Henry's media campaign to save Wall Street -- sorry, I meant the nation.

President Bush is looking a bit befuddled these days. Always the courageous and mighty cheerleader, however, he is at his best with the much-rehearsed line about "protecting the American people," a kind of template for media consumption. But, no questions please, time is of the essence. Foot-dragging is un-American and a danger to national economic security. To beat back the quarrelsome skeptics, all we need now is a Power Point presentation from Colin Powell. This time in the U.S. Senate rather than the UN.

Re-tool the message from WMD to GFM -- "Global Financial Meltdown." Instead of "invade," they could just use "give us all the money we want from taxpayers with no questions asked, no strings attached. Now."

Powell could even hold up a little vial and announce that is all of the money left in the U.S. unless we fork over the bailout.

Mercifully, we have not heard Bush bellowing warnings about mushroom clouds. The problem with the boy crying wolf is that when there really was a wolf, no one believed him. As for the Wall Street wise guys, we should have heeded the warning that if we didn't fight them there, they would just follow us to Washington and we would have to fight them here. That is the fierce urgency of now.

Charles Fulwood
The Nader Team

ShareThisShareThis

Yesterday on The CBS Evening News, anchor Katie Couric spoke (link has video and text) with GOP nominee Senator John McCain:



Katie Couric: Sen. McCain, why is it necessary for you to take this extraordinary step of suspending your campaign?

John McCain: 'Cause these are extraordinary times. The financial crisis is on the verge of a very, very serious, most serious crisis since the end of World War II. That's according to Mr. Bernanke, Secretary Paulson and others. Any expert. This is a most serious situation. And it could … not only be United States markets, but world markets as well.

Couric: In fact, you met with economists this morning, and a number of financial experts, and it seems to me they really shook you up.


The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.

iraq
the new york times
alissa j. rubin
mcclatchy newspapers
corinne reilly
hussein kadhim

The second part of the interview with Governor Palin is scheduled to air tonight.



The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.

iraq
the new york times
the los angeles times
tina susman
caesar ahmed
the washington post
sudarsan raghavan
amit r. paley
ernesto londono

Wednesday, September 24, 2008.  Chaos and violence continues including an ambush in Diyala Province, no provincial elections this year in Iraq, DoD announces the death M-NF forgot to, Friday's Democratic and Republican presidential nominee debate may be called off, and more.   Today Alissa J. Rubin (New York Times) reports on the Ministry of Trade in Iraq where "three high-ranking officials" and "[t]hree lower-ranking ministry officials" were fired. The firings did not sit well with some members of Parliament who had "collected the 107 signatures they said they needed to discuss a no-confidence motion against the trade minister" who instead remains in office. Why focus on the Ministry of Trade? Parliament's Integrity Committee chair Sabah al-Saadi explains, "The reason to concentrate on the Ministry of Trade is because it gives direct services to the citizens. People cannot live without food. It's not like electricity where they can buy power from private generators. Its' related to poverty and hunger."  Rubin notes of the rations, began under Saddam Hussein, that the quality of them has seriously declined: The basket consisted of flour, rice, tea, sugar, salt, dried milk for adults and for children, cooking oils, lentils, chickpeas, soap for washing and laundry, and occasional extras, such as tomato paste or cake flour. During the past three years, both the selection of products and their quality have diminished, many Iraqis say. Milk has been missing for much of the past three years, although it recently made a reappearance, and there have been cases of rice with bugs in it and stale tea.   Left unnoted is that the White House has repeatedly attempted to stamp out the rations and that each year has seen a reduction in the amount of rations handed out by the puppet government as they attempt to end the program incrimentally since they can't do it out right.  For example, from the December 4th snapshot, "The United Nations' IRIN reports that Abid Falah al-Soodani (Trade Minister) announced yesterday that, starting next month, 'the quantity of national food rations delivered freely to all Iraqi families will be futher reduced -- from 10 to five items.'  Now let's be clear, this isn't just halfing the food supplies.  He told the Iraqi Parliament that the five items provided will be provided in lower numbers.  Here's what's getting cut out: tea, beans, children's milk, soap detergent and tomato paste.  Here's what's getting reduced: rice, sugar, cooking oil, flour and milk for adults."    Turning to US Congressional committees.  First yesterday's snapshot, noted the Senate Democratic Policy Committee's hearing on the corruption in Iraq. Dana Hedgpeth (Washington Post) reported Tuesday and noted, "In one scheme described by [Salam] Adhoob, Iraqi Defense Ministry officials helped set up two front companies that were to buy airplanes, armored vehicles, guns and other equipment with $1.7 billion in U.S. funds. The companies were paid, but in some cases they delivered only 'a small percentage' of the equipment that had been ordered and, in one case, delivered bulletproof vests that were defective and could not be used."  Yesterday the House Committe on Veterans Affairs explored the outreach efforts and Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America's Carolyn Schapper was among those testifying.   Carolyn Schapper: When I came home I dealt with a wide range of adjustment issues, PTSD symptoms, rage, anger, seeking revenge, increased alcohol use, withdrawal from friends and family, depression, high anxiety, agitation, nightmares and hyper-vigilance.  My symptoms altered and grew over time.  I was not the person I used to be and I knew it.  I suspected I might have PTSD, but I could not figure out if I did, even though I searched endless websites.  Nothing was comprehensive, nothing spoke to me as an Iraq vet.  I even searched the VA website and it was no help to me.  I could not put the pieces of the puzzle together on my own.  The best way I can describe PTSD is feeling lost and disconnected, sitting in a dark hole.  It is very hard to compose yourself to the point of working your way through the VA maze.  Most people will not get help because it is so daunting.  Personally, I would still be lost -- or possibly worse -- if I had not had the dumb luck of running into another veteran who already had gotten help, and who pointed out that a Vet Center could help me start the navigation of the VA system.  Recently, when I first saw the VA's posters in the Metro, I thought it was fantastic that they were finally reaching out to veterans, instead of waiting for us to come to them.  I have seen the posters several times.  But I also had to ask: where was the VA two years ago?  When I really could have used it?  Because the VA is so late to the game there is a huge backlog of veterans who were not as lucky as I was and who have not yet found their way to the services they need.  There is a huge amount of catching up to do. I also recently read a copy of the letter the VA is apparently sending out in conjunction with this campaign that oulines several of these symptoms I mentioned above in one place.  The letter is good and comprehensive but I ask who is and is not receiving it?  I had not received it.  I also have some concerns about the way the ads are designed.  For instance, the phone number is hard to read.  A veteran in a crowded metro car is not going to want to draw attention to themselves by getting up and walking across to a poster.  If they can sit far from the poster and still see the number, it would be much more effective.  While these ads can and should definately be improved, I am certain that even this outreach will help a few lost souls.   Among the information that the VA needs to be getting to veterans is new changes.  Greg Zoroya (USA Today) reports, "The government plans to substantially increase disability benefits for veterans with mild traumatic brain injuries, acknowledging for the first time that veterans suffering from this less severe version of the Iraq war's signature wound will struggle to make a living."  Yesterday the VA issued a press release on changes in disability rating schedule for TBI and burn scars:   The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) today announced changes in the way VA will evaluate traumatic brain injuries (TBI) and burn scars for purposes of determining the appropriate level of compensation veterans receive for these injuries. [. . .]  Two groups of veterans may be affected by these changes.  The first group includes veterans who will be awarded disability compensation for TBI and burn injuries in the future.  The second group includes veterans already receiving compensation for these injuries whose disabilities are reevaluated under the new criteria. The effects of blast injuries resulting from roadside explosions of improvised explosive devices have been common sources of injury in the conflicts in Iraq  and Afghanistan  and appear to be somewhat different from the effects of trauma seen from other sources of injury.    And the VA also issued a press release regarding ALS:   Veterans with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) may receive badly-needed support for themselves and their families after the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) announced today that ALS will become a presumptively compensable illness for all veterans with 90 days or more of continuously active service in the military.      "Veterans are developing ALS in rates higher than the general population, and it was appropriate to take action," Secretary of Veterans Affairs Dr. James B. Peake said. Secretary Peake based his decision primarily on a November 2006 report by the National Academy of Sciences' Institute of Medicine (IOM) on the association between active-duty service and ALS.     Today the Senate Veterans Affair's Committee held a hearing entitled "Cooperation and Collaboration by VA and DoD on Information Technology efforts."  "This is historic," declared chair Daniel Akaka calling the meeting to order explaining, .  Veterans Affairs and Department of Defense have been talking to each other, have been working together and here's another area that we're getting in where we're working together. This is why I said it's historic. Even in the waning days of this Congressional session we must continue to strive to improve care for service members and veterans.  An essential ingredient to reaching that goals is a sharing of personal health care information between the two departments."  Akaka said the goal was sharing medical information in real time.   The first panel was the Government Accountability Office's Valerie Melvin (Human Capital and Management Information Systems Director) who noted in her opening statements:   DoD and VA are sharing some, but not all, electronic health information at different levels of interoperability.  Specifically, pharmacy and drug allergy data on almost 19,000 shared patients are exchanged at the highest level of interoperability -- that is, in computable form; at this level the data are in a standardized format that a computer application can act on.  In other cases, data can be viewed only -- a lower level of interoperability that still provides clinicians with important information.   And she noted that a number of health care data is still stored only on paper. From her exchange with the chair.   Senator Daniel Akaka: Let me ask you, in your view and based upon the recent progress are VA and DoD on the right track for fully sharing electronic medical information by September 9th [2009]?  The date set by Congress.   Valerie Melvin: They are on an important track and I would say it is a positive track and a track in the right direction.  The concern that I have at this time is that the definition of full interoperability remains unclear.  In my statement, I made the point that VA and DoD had not yet defined an interoperability goal for us at GAO that's a very important step that needs to be taken from a standpoint of really knowing what it is that the department  intends to have in place by September 9.  I think they've made critically important progress as far as moving in the direction of interoperable sharing.  They are sharing at various levels of interoperability as I've stated; however, how much more they intend to share across what facilities and through across what percentage of their patients is still unclear.  So that once that's defined, I believe there'll be a better case for stating whether or not they'll be able to reach the September 2009 date for full interoperability.   Senator Daniel Akaka: Well, you just mentioned interoperability as being unclear, Ms. Melvin.  GAO identified that one of the major challenges for DoD and VA is the ability to develop common standards for shared data.  Please explain for the committee why these common standards are so necessary.   Valerie Melvin: I might start by saying that in developing standards, that's a difficult task, not just for VA and DoD.  Even at the national level at which the office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology is involved and which DoD and VA are involved with, identifying standards and agreeing to standards across multiple entitites -- in this case, two very large federal agencies -- is a complex task that does involve understanding the data that each agency views or deems as most important to meet their needs in caring for veterans and in caring for active duty patients.  But common standards are essential from the standpoint of allowing VA and DoD systems essentially to talk to each other.  At the very basic these standards are needed so that if you are talking about a particular type of medication, for example let's say an aspirin, in terms of sharing data and being able to have computerized data for example where we talked about being able to provide alerts for allergies to certain medications it's important that VA system be able to read an aspirin as aspirin and see that data in DoD's system and know that that's the same aspirin or the same type of medication.  At the same time, standards are important for establishing how data is communicated between those two computers.  For example, from the standpoint that there are standards for messaging, there are standards for establishing specific data elements -- for how data transmits, in what order specific types of information comes over to another computer or is read by another computer.  It's important for example that if VA's computer is looking at information for a patient and they are looking for a date of birth that they in fact -- that that sytems understands where to read that date of birth from DoD's information, that it reads it as a date of birth, not perhaps as a Social Security number.  So having standards allows those systems to have a common way to talk to each other and to make sure that they understand -- those systems can read the data from each other and produce results that are informative in making decisions.   Senator Daniel Akaka: I know you've made some progress in reaching the common standards of ineteroperability.  How far do the departments have to go in achieving these standards for shared electronic health information?  Are we a year away?  Or is it closer to five or ten years before complete standardization can be achieved?    Valerie Melvin: That's really a question that the agencies will have to answer.  It really goes to the heart of the work that those agencies are undertaking and will have to continue to undertake to really establish what their needs are.  It's rooted in their need to understand what the user requirements are, rooted in understanding how best to serve their patient population and so knowing what their needs are will have to drive what types of data they want, will have to drive the harmonization related to that data and ultimately what they decide will be the standards that establish the specific data and how it's communicated.   So what all the above gets to is that the GAO thinks it is very unlikely that the VA and DoD will meet the date Congress has given them to be compatible with one another.  While that's in gridlock, Iraq's Parliament has news.  Corinne Reilly (McClatchy Newspapers) reports the Parliament has passed legislation for provincial elections.  Tina Susman (Los Angeles Times) explains, "The bill, approved unanimously by legislators, said elections should take place by Jan. 31, 2009. The date is later than U.S. officials had hoped. They have urged elections this year to more evenly spread power among Sunni Arabs, Shiite Muslims, and Kurds in areas where the division of power is lopsided."  Both note that Kirkuk was set-aside.  It will not hold provincial elections.  The oil-rich city will, instead, continue to be the prize the central 'government' in Baghdad and the Kurdish region fight over. Reilly adds, "The committee is to make its recommendations by March 31, and the parliament will then decide how to deal with the city."  Meanwhile Alaa Majeed (UPI) notes a Kurdish newspaper weighing in on the continued US presence in Iraq, "For the sake of the national interest and the independence of Iraq, the foreign military presence has to end as soon as possible, al-Ittihad newspaper of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan said Tuesday.  In order for the withdrawal not to be disastrous The call for independence and full sovereignty is the least that people of any country demand to achieve in order to control their fate and their future. It is unsettling for the Iraqi people to see political and social powers deciding their will."   Bombings?   Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad roadside bombing that injured seven Iraqis, a Baghdad car bombing claimed 1 life and left five people injured, a Mosul roadside bombing wounded tow Iraqi soldiers and a Sadiyah roadside bombing wounded three police officers.   Shootings?   Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports the Ministry of Interior's Abdul Karim Hussein and "his driver and another person" were wounded in a Baghdad gunfire attack, 1 Diyala Province kindergarten school guard was shot dead, 1 police officer shot dead in Diyala Province (one more injured) and an ambush "in Dulaimiyat village of Khan Bani Saad" [still Diyala Province] that claimed the lives of "12 national policemen and eight Sahwa members".  On the ambus, BBC notes, "Gunmen first attacked a checkpoint in the village, killing a policeman, officials said.  They then ambushed reinforcements, killing another 11 policemen and Sunni Arab fighters."  Al Jazeera quotes Dr. Ahmed Faud stating, "The bodies are riddled with bullets."  AFP notes, "The province has seen a spate of suicide bombings, several of them carried out by women, that commanders have blamed on the jihadists. On September 15, a woman suicide bomber blew herself up in a crowd of people during a feast in the town of Balad Druz in Diyala, killing 22 people and wounding dozens more."   Corpses?   Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 1 corpse discovered in Baghdad.   Meanwhile 4171 is now the number of US service members killed since the start of the illegal war and 20 for the month thus far. That's one up from yesterday and, yet again, the count goes up via DoD and not M-NF. Repeating, M-NF is supposed to announce deaths, DoD is supposed to identify the fallen.   Turning to the US presidential race.  Joshua Frank offers a must read "Oppose Barack Obama? How Dare Thee!!" (Dissident Voice) about how "progressives" continue to express dismay with Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama yet still continue to vote for him.  Frank runs through Barack's record including "Obama who says he wants an end to the war but has voted for its continuation and will leave troops and private mercenaries in the country to deal with the so-called insurgents -- even threatening to shift US forces to Afghanistan and Iran, where he's promised to bully our enemies into submission."  The cave on FISA, the support for the "Patriot" Act, the pro-nuclear, it's all there leading Frank to point out, "Obama has never been a true progressive.  He's another centrist Democrat that has done his best to appease all sides of the political spectrum".  Frank examines Norman Solomon "an Obama delegate at the convention in Denver and [who] sits on the board of Progressive Democrats of America, has an agenda: to usher Barack Obama into the White House because he sees John McCain as leading our country closer to the sacrificial ledge.  'Save the Country (read Empire) Vote Democrat' has become a common refrain among a certain segment of the left, one that echoes through progressive and even radical circles every four years like clockwork.  Go ahead and acknowledge their faults, they sing from on high, just don't you dare ditch the Democrats come Election Day, for the rapture will ensue.  Like others of his stature, Solomon has in the past dished out scare tactics in an attempt to threaten progressives into voting against their own interests, an approach not too unlike the Republican's who consistently undermine the concerns and needs of their base."  Frank goes on to demolish the fear card attempted re: Supreme Court and ends with a historical reminder.   GOP presidential candidate John McCain is in the news for proposing Friday's debate be called off.  McCain explains (McCain-Palin 2008, link has text and video): "America this week faces an historic crisis in our financial system. We must pass legislation to address this crisis. If we do not, credit will dry up, with devastating consequences for our economy. People will no longer be able to buy homes and their life savings will be at stake. Businesses will not have enough money to pay their employees. If we do not act, every corner of our country will be impacted. We cannot allow this to happen. Last Friday, I laid out my proposal and I have since discussed my priorities and concerns with the bill the Administration has put forward. Senator Obama has expressed his priorities and concerns. This morning, I met with a group of economic advisers to talk about the proposal on the table and the steps that we should take going forward. I have also spoken with members of Congress to hear their perspective. It has become clear that no consensus has developed to support the Administration's proposal. I do not believe that the plan on the table will pass as it currently stands, and we are running out of time. Tomorrow morning, I will suspend my campaign and return to Washington after speaking at the Clinton Global Initiative. I have spoken to Senator Obama and informed him of my decision and have asked him to join me.  I am calling on the President to convene a meeting with the leadership from both houses of Congress, including Senator Obama and myself. It is time for both parties to come together to solve this problem."   Ralph Nader is the independent presidential candidate and he writes of the economic meltdown in the US today:   I was up on Capitol Hill yesterday among the swarm of big bank lobbyists. And the first thing I thought of was something my dad -- Nathra Nader -- used to say: "Capitalism will always survive in the United States as long as the government is willing to use socialism to bail it out." Dad was old school. Dad emigrated to the U.S. in 1912 when he was nineteen. (Here is a picture of Dad in 1978, leading a demonstration in Winsted, Connecticut, my hometown, to protest a Congressional pay raise.) "When I sailed past the Statue of Liberty, I took it seriously," he would say. Dad ran a restaurant in downtown Winsted -- the Highland Arms. People used to say -- "At Nader's place, for a nickel you got a cup of coffee and ten minutes of conversation." Dad didn't hesitate to skewer the greed of big business. He especially opposed the drive by the chain stores to destroy family owned small businesses. Dad was a man of many sayings. "Congress is the best big business investment in the country," he would say. "It's one big leveraged sell-out." When we were young, Dad would tell us: "Don't look down on anyone and don't be in awe of anyone." Or this one: "Almost everyone will claim they love their country. If that is true, why don't they spend more time improving it?" Dad knew early on that both political parties were under the thumb of big business. (Where did you think I got it from?) Anyway, being on Capitol Hill yesterday got me to thinking about an idea that would help us push our substantive agenda onto the front burner of American politics. A few years ago, I sat down at my manual typewriter and typed in 100 or so of my Dad's most memorable sayings and proverbs. I thought you would enjoy having a copy of them. So, here's the deal. Our goal during this current fundraising drive is to hit $150,000 by the end of the month. (Thanks to your generosity, we're already at $36,000.) If you donate any amount that has the number 3 in it -- as in -- we want a 3-way race -- by midnight tonight, we'll e-mail to you a collection of my Dad's sayings and proverbs. That simple.  So, you can give $3. Or $13. Or $30. Or $33. Or $300. Anything up the to the maximum of $2,300. But it has to have at least one three in it. If it has a three in it, we'll e-mail you the 20 pages of Dad's sayings tomorrow. You can share it with your friends and family. Thank you for your ongoing support. Together, we are making a serious difference -- and keeping our sense of humor. Onward to November. Ralph Nader PS: And remember, if you donate $100 now, we'll ship to you a copy of The Ralph Nader Reader, a 441-page collection of my writings on Wall Street vs. Main Street, democracy, the corporate state, and our hyper-commercialized culture. If you donate $100 now, we will send you this diverse collection -- and I'll autograph it. (This book offer ends at 11:59 p.m. September 30, 2008.)   iraq joshua frank mcclatchy newspapers the los angeles times tina susman the new york times alissa j. rubin dana hedgpeth the washington post

Tonight The New Adventures of Old Christine makes it season debut on CBS. One of the few sitcoms featuring women and a very funny program starring Emmy winner Julia Louis-Dreyfus as Christine (old Christine). Clark Gregg plays Christine's ex-husband, Emily Rutherfurd plays (new) Christine, Hamish Linklater plays (old) Christine's brother Matthew and Wanda Sykes plays (old) Christine's business partner and friend Barb. As noted in "Coming Up" (Third Estate Sunday Review):

This Wednesday, The New Adventures of Old Christine has its season debut during prime time's first half-hour. This is a popular show with many readers -- many of whom have written to note that Ava and C.I. have been documenting CBS' attempt to disown the program for some time. Ava and C.I. note that the Wednesday move is not unlike when CBS attempted to get rid of Murphy Brown and The Nanny. You can make it harder for CBS to get rid of the show you enjoy by watching it on its new day. (It transitioned over the summer -- airing on both Wednesdays and Mondays but with the fall season now underway, it will air on Wednesdays.) Ruth and Marcia both wrote about it last week and intend to do a heads up in their Tuesday night posts. Seeing those posts last week led many of you to ask that we somehow note the change so that everyone is aware. As Ruth and Marcia pointed out, sitcoms have seen the disappearance of the female lead. The New Adventures of Old Christine not only offers a female lead, it offers what may be the funniest network sitcom. We will note the new air date again next week in another format. [Click here for Ava and C.I.'s review of the show, and here, here, here and here for some more commentary by Ava and C.I. That's not all the commentary, just all we're linking to for this short feature.]

Staying with TV, last week's NOW on PBS explored women and politics:



How have women in politics changed America and the world? NOW on PBS investigates with an hour-long special hosted by Maria Hinojosa: "Women, Power and Politics: A Rising Tide?"

See the show on television this weekend or watch online STARTING SATURDAY

[. . .]

Show Description: Given the hoopla surrounding Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton's historical political ascendance, why does the U.S. rank so low among countries for percentage of women holding national office? On Friday, September 19 at 8:30 pm (check local listings), in a one-hour special, NOW's Maria Hinojosa talks to women leaders around the world and here in the United States for an intimate look at the high-stakes risks, triumphs, and setbacks for women leaders of today and tomorrow. Among these women are President Michelle Bachelet of Chile, the first woman leader in Latin America who did not have a husband precede her as President, and former New Hampshire Governor Jeanne Shaheen, now in a tight race for a seat in the U.S. Senate.

We also travel to Rwanda, where, 14 years after a horrific massacre left nearly one million people dead, women make up nearly half of parliament; and to Manhattan, where ambitious high school girls are competing in a high-stakes debate tournament.

"Women, Power and Politics," is also about the personal journey of mother and award-winning journalist Maria Hinojosa as she strives to answer the question: "What does to mean to be a woman in power?"

Watch a preview and excerpt of this special program at this web address:

Use this directory tool to find out where the show is airing in your area:

The NOW website ... will feature web-exclusive commentary from noteworthy women including Maria Bartiromo, Sandra Cisneros, and Tina Brown; a personal essay from Maria Hinojosa; an interactive debate over Sarah Palin's candidacy; as well as opportunities for all women to post and share their stories of ambition, success, and discouragement.

(The "interactive debate" over Sarah Palin's candidacy is live now ...)

The episode can be streamed (video) online. NOW on PBS' exec producer John Siceloff has written a piece explaining NOW's online polling policies.

Turning to Iraq, Tina Susman and Caesar Ahmad's "IRAQ: Female bomber cartoon stirs anger" (Babylon & Beyond, Los Angeles Times):

The weekly newspaper that calls itself Al Esbuyia, or Iraq Weekly, offers a regular diet of sports, culture, features and sarcasm to readers, and one of its key features is the cartoon that accompanies each new issue. Most of the cartoons poke fun at the hardships endured by regular Iraqis, but some Iraqi lawmakers found the one published Sept. 14 to be not very amusing.

It shows a Muslim woman clad in a burka holding a burning bomb fuse in her raised left hand, a la the Statue of Liberty, who stands beside her. The drawing reflects the growing number of female suicide bombers in Iraq, but members of Iraq's parliament denounced it as an insult to Iraqi Muslim women and voted Sunday to sue the newspaper for defamation.

It's too early to say where, if anywhere, the lawsuit will go. For months, Iraqi lawmakers haven't been able to pass pressing legislation to hold provincial elections or share the nation's oil wealth, so the chances of them getting organized enough to push through a lawsuit like this seem remote.

The cartoon is featured in the article for those who would like to see it. Yesterday's snapshot included this:

Today the US military announced: "A Multi-National Division -- Center Soldier was killed as a result of a small-arms fire attack west of Salman Pak Sept. 23." McClatchy Mohammed Al Dulaimy reports that Iraqi police state two US soldiers died, that 2 Iraqis were killed in the exchange and that "[p]olice said the attacker saw American soldiers searching an Iraqi woman using their hands, which prompted him to pen fire on the soldiers." The announcement brings to 4170 the number of US service members killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war with 19 for the month thus far.

The numbers are now 4171 US service members killed since the start of the illegal war and 20 for the month thus far. And, yet again, the count goes up via DoD and not M-NF. Repeating, M-NF is supposed to announce deaths, DoD is supposed to identify the fallen.

Ralph Nader is the independent presidential candidate and we'll note these upcoming appearances (which start today):

Sept. 24th, 2pm

Nader/Gonzalez Rally

Morgantown, WV

West Virginia University, "Gluck Theater", Mountain Lair Student Union

Suggested Contribution: $10/ $5 students

(312) 208-4687 or events@votenader.org

Map it

Sept. 24th, 7:30pm

Nader/Gonzalez Rally

Pittsburgh, PA

University of Pittsburgh, David Lawrence Hall, Room # 120

Suggested Contribution:$10/ $5 students

(504) 319-9312 or events@votenader.org

Map it

Sept. 26th, 2pm

Nader/Gonzalez Rally

Los Angeles, CA

USC, Embassy Room- Davidson Building

3415 S. Figueroa St. Los Angeles, CA 90089

Suggested Contribution: $10/ $5 students

(714) 803-9676 or events@votenader.org

Map it

Sept. 26th, 9:30pm

Bill Maher Show/ Debate After Party with Ralph Nader

Hollywood, CA

Social Hollywood Club

6525 West Sunset Blvd. Hollywood, CA 90028

Contribution: $25-$100

Contact Rob: (202)471-5833 or events@votenader.org

Map it

Sept. 27th, 3pm

Nader/Gonzalez Rally

San Diego, CA

UCSD, "The Great Hall", Eleanor Roosevelt College

Suggested Contribution: $10/ $5 students

(858) 633-0490 or events@votenader.org

Map it

Sept. 27th, 7:30pm

Nader/Gonzalez Rally

Encinitas, CA

La Paloma Theater

471 South Coast Hwy. 101, Encinitas, CA 92024

Suggested Contribution: $10/ $5 students

(760) 436-8984 or events@votenader.org

Map it

And remember these actions to take to open the debates, from Team Nader:

Call Barack Obama, E-mail Janet Brown Now

Okay, time for action.

The first Presidential debate is Friday.

And we're getting stonewalled.

They won't let Ralph Nader into the Presidential debates.

So, here's what we're going to do.

It's a two step process.

Step one -- call Barack Obama.

Tell Obama he should demand that Ralph Nader be included in the debates.

And step two -- e-mail the Commission on Presidential Debates.

And let them know you are onto their game.

Here are the details.

Step one:

Call Barack Obama at 866-675-2008.
Hit 6 to speak with a campaign volunteer.
Once connected, politely deliver the following message:

Hi, my name is ...

I was wondering if Senator Obama, being a believer in equal opportunity and equal rights, could insist that Ralph Nader and other ballot qualified third party candidates be included in the upcoming Presidential debates?

After all, Nader is on 45 state ballots.

And he's polling well nationwide. And he could help Senator Obama challenge the corporate Republicans.

True, Ralph would critique Senator Obama for his corporate ties also. But isn't that what democracy is about? Could you please leave this message for the campaign manager? Thank you.

Step two:

E-mail Janet Brown, the executive director of the Commission on Presidential Debates.

Here's a sample e-mail:

Dear Janet Brown:

Greetings.
You must be busy.
Preparing for the first Presidential debate this Friday.
So, I won't take much of your time.
Just wanted to let you know that the American people were not born yesterday.
We know the deal.
Take that little private corporation that you run.
Controlled by the two corporate parties.
And funded by big business.
For the purpose of excluding independent minded candidates.
Friday, two Wall Street candidates are scheduled to be in the ring.
Barack Obama and John McCain.
The one candidate who represents the American people, Main Street, if you will, will be on the outside looking in.
So, here's a simple request.
Drop your exclusionary restrictions.
And let Ralph Nader into the debates.
It will be good for your conscience.
Good for the American people. (I believe it was The League of Women Voters that called your corporatized debates "campaign-trail charades devoid of substance, spontaneity, and honest answers to tough questions.")
And good for democracy.
Let the American people have a real debate for once.
Main Street vs. Wall Street.

Thank you.

Signed

your name.

Onward to November

The Nader Team

ShareThisShareThis

The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.

iraq
caesar ahmed
tina susman
the los angeles times
julia louis-dreyfus
the new adventures of old christine
cbs
pbs
now on pbs
maria hinojosa

George Bryson's "Army Ordered to discharge soldier who found religon in Iraq" (McClatchy's Anchorage Daily News) reports that US District Judge John Sedwick has ordered that Private First Class Michael Barnes be released from the US military as a conscientious objector (with honorable discharge). Judge Sedwick found the army's claims that this was some maneuver on Barnes' part to avoid service were assertions the military failed to prove and that "testimony by a chaplain, a psychiatrist, fellow soldiers and Barnes himself proved the contrary." The ruling should shed a light on how the military really isn't in the place to 'judge' faith and that should have been evident in the case of Agustin Aguayo. The military's rejection of Agustin's claim was an offence to faith because it went against the teachings and beliefs of most faiths, with the military arguing, in effect, that faith was a static state of being and that it could not awaken or deepen. Obviously, most faiths advocate that belief that a believer grows in their faith. That can be seen in the stories describing the testings of Jesus Christ. (The testings of, not the teachings of.)

The process isn't going to change tomorrow. And it didn't change greatly during Vietnam. (1968 saw a shake up of the CO process and guidelines.) The peace movement of that period ended the draft and that is and was an important victory but the CO process is something that many members of Congress (at that time) would make sympathetic comments of but the issue was dropped. Following the end of the current illegal war, the peace movement would be smart to pursue this because the policy rarely changes in the midst of a war (of any war).

Religious faith is not necessary for CO status (though the military currently 'forgets' that and is allowed to get away with 'forgetting' it) but we're going to focus on that aspect due to the above ruling.

A counter-argument against CO status (and against war resistance) is, "You knew what you were signing up for." No, you didn't. You couldn't. And that is the story of the trials and testing of Jesus. You may think you do, but there is the abstract and there is the actual.

Stephen Fortunato was a CO during Vietnam and his case was not that different from Agustin's. Like Aguayo, Fortunato had an awakening and stopped carrying his weapon. (Agustin stopped carrying a loaded weapon.) Like Aguayo, Fortunato enlisted, he was not drafted. After his discharge, he attended Providence College and wrote a paper that was widely circulated at the time. In it, he noted:

I came to conscientious objection over a somewhat circuitous route -- via the Marine Corps. At the age of eighteen I freely enlisted in the Marine Corps Reserve, more out of a spirit of adolescent adventure than anything else, and certainly not because I thought freedom would be better preserved if the government stuck an M-1 in my hands.
With all the passion and exuberance of youth I became a trained killer. I went to classes where I learned how to rip a man's jugular vein out with my teeth. I growled like a tiger when I was told to growl like a tiger. (It would indeed by edifying for religious and educational leaders to see their flocks brandishing bayonets and yelping and grunting on command, like well-trained jungle beasts -- all for the preservation of Western civilization!)
I was told that the Ten Commandments, however worthy they might be in civilian life, had to be suspended in the name of national interest. I was greatly impressed to see that an act perpetrated by the enemy was ipso facto vicious and deceitful, whereas the self-same act perpetrated by the United States was just and praiseworthy.
For two years I did my reserve duty without questioning the purposes or the means of the armed forces. It remained for one of the cruder excesses of military training to wrench me from the spiritual doldrums.
[. . .]
My first break with the ways of the military was emotional and intuitive. The contradictions of war and war preparations became clear and self-evident. It did not become a rational creature to permit himself to be led in cries for destruction of human life; a truly free man would not support a totalitarian system to defend freedom; one cannot bring about peace by threatening to incinerate mankind. No, I came to believe that a free man preserves his freedom by acting freely and not by following those would would herd men into regiments or send people scurrying like moles into bomb shelters. Most important of all, the free man must remain free not to kill or to support killing.
[. . .]
I knew I had arrived at conscientious objection. I was opposed in body and soul to the organized, budgeted, and officially sanctified use of violence called war. I was opposed to the compulsory and regimented aberration from the laws of God and reason, called conscription. I could no longer, in conscience, bear arms.
What course of action was I to take? I had freely enlisted in the reserves. But how free was I? Our society conspires in favor of the armed camp set-up we now live in. At the age of eighteen, I had not once considered military service as confronting me with a moral decision. It is one of the more gruesome paradoxes of our time than in a free -- or supposedly so -- society the atmosphere of choice on such a crucial issue had been so stifled.


Again, in 1968 the military's CO policies were updated and while that can be seen as a small vicotry the problem then is the problem today: the written policy is not really followed. During times of peace, it generally is and we may back off from the issue as a result. But following the end of this current illegal war, a serious investigation by Congress into how the written policy was followed or ignored is needed. Many members of the peace movement advocate for expanding the written policy (I'm not opposed to that) but the reality is that the written policy is yet again not being followed and that many attempting CO status would earn it under the current policy (as is) if it were only followed.

When any war ends, fatigue sets in and energies go into other issues. Over the last forty years, the US has seen two wars where the written CO policy/guidelines were not followed. Once a war starts, it is impossible to get Congress to address almost anything. (Including ending the illegal war.) Learning from mistakes argues for a demand on Congress to examine the military's compliance with the CO policies before the next war starts.

A CO does not have to have a belief in a god. That's in the policy. But that is routinely ignored today. The concept of a religious awakening or deepening, consistent with teachings of many faiths, is ignored.

The policy, as written, does not require that someone have a legal mind to navigate the process successfully. But that is what is happening.

Michael Barnes qualifies for CO status. It should not require a federal judge issuing a sixteen page ruling for him to be granted that status. He met the requirements and yet he had to take his argument to the federal courts because the military refused to follow their own policies. He won. Many more do not.

Again, I'm all for arguing that the policy needs to be expanded. But the reality is that the policy, as it is written, is not being followed by the military and, time and again, rejections reveal not a flaw or error on the part of the applicant but either a lack of understanding of the CO policy on the part of the military or a refusal to follow it.

In Iraq, Tina Susman examines the prison situation ins "IRAQ: Iraqi detainees face uncertain future" (Bablyon and Beyond, Los Angeles Times):

"I was there when they took them away. It was in the afternoon, and I was praying at the time," says Sumaychiya Abid Ahmad as she recalls the day 15 months ago when her sons, Waleed and Tawfiq, were arrested. The Iraqi soldiers who led them from the family's home in Abu Ghraib, southwest of Baghdad, said it would be a few minutes -- just enough time to get their help with an electrical problem, since both young men are electricians.
But as the Los Angeles Times reported Monday, the two are among several thousand Iraqis being held in Iraqi detention centers who say they have never seen a lawyer or been brought before a judge after months or even years of detention. It's a problem that U.S. and Iraqi officials acknowledge exists, but fixing it is proving difficult as stepped-up security efforts pour more and more detainees into the Iraqi system.

If you've forgotten War Pornographer Michael Gordon was all giddy in print July 30, 2007, "Justice From Behind the Barricades in Baghdad" (New York Times). Things were changing! Things were improving! That "Rule of Law Complex" was supposed to mean 'justice' would take place much more quickly. It didn't change a thing. In fact, the only thing that keeps Iraqi over-populated prisons going is that the puppet government regularly resorts to mass releases. Why? If the prisoners are guilty, surely they should stay behind bars. But it's not about guilt or innocence and that's why we've seen the mass releases every year of the illegal war.

There is no justice and every year we're told it is improving and every year it doesn't improve. The problems are neither new nor unknown.

Nor is what Erica Goode's addressing on the front page of the New York Times. Not an insult, just noting that she's covering something that has long been going on. "On Safer Streets in Baghdad, Friction Infiltrates Sunni Patrols" notes the continued tension and violence and, focusing on the Baghdad neighborhood of Adhamiya (a Sunni neighborhood), the "Awakening" Councils "have posed increasing problems. . . . Some residents complain that the men, not a few of them swaggering street toughs, use their power to intimidate people. Sometimes violence erupts."

It's a lengthy article and needs to be. It may also be the paper's first acknowledgment that the "Awakening" Council has an impact on a neighborhood that goes beyond "ooooh, I can walk down the street." (Yes, I'm thinking of one article in particular. And "I" is a reporter, not a citizen of Iraq.) There has been a long refusal to look beyond the 'pretty fences' and acknowledge what life is like for the citizens when the "Awakening" Councils are 'empowered.' Goode's article is a strong corrective to that and notes, "Other areas of Iraq, like Diyala and Salahuddin Provinces, where local leaders say Awakening groups have carried out kidnappings and killings aimed at rival councils, might also offer fertile recruiting grounds" for the "insurgency." Goode's article also notes the concerns of the "Awakening" Council members with the transfer from the protective wing of the US military to the puppet government in Baghdad. Nouri al-Maliki (and others before him) staffed the ministries with 'guards' and 'police' that were Shia thugs. The Sunnis thugs do have cause to worry.

The de-de-Baathification has still not taken place (as US House Rep Lloyd Doggett pointed out in last week's House Budget Committee hearing) and the impacts of Paul Bremer's decision to implement de-Baathification are now evident. The 'government' struggles and is 'staffed' with people who must learn their jobs. (Of course, people who knew their jobs might mean Shell and others would not be able to profit today.) As the persh mega and the Iraqi military remain in conflict in Diyala Province and as Baghdad sees festering tensions over the 'embrace' of the "Awakening" Councils it should first of all be remembered that the US administration is guiding all that is happening. After that's grasped, we should all wonder why US House Rep Tim Bishop was informed in the committee hearing last week that the US predictions for what happens in Iraq after de-de-Baathification takes place (they call it de-Baathification, but de-Baathification was what Bremer did, purging the Baathists from the public sector) is an issue that can't be discussed in an open hearing.

There is a repeated claim by many who support continuing the illegal war which states if the US leaves Iraq, a bloodbath will ensue. A bloodbath already has ensued and continues. Now you have the Kurds in conflict with the central 'government' of Iraq (the pesh merga refusing to allow Iraqi soldiers to enter and patrol some areas of Diyala Province) and the conflict between the central 'government' and the "Awakening" Councils. Three of the four are creations of the US. (The pesh merga is not. It is, however, supported by the US and has been allowed to overreach with US encouragement. Only last week did the US finally attempt to step by sending the second in command to Khanaqin, where he was rebuffed.) Any violence that ensues is a result of US policies. The fact that violence will most likely follow the implementation of the de-de-Baathifcation policy and that the this is a finding that must be kept from the American people (according to the administration) is outrageous. It also questions the argument that the US' continued presence is preventing violence when it is only sewing greater conflict.

Lying to the American people was at the start of the illegal war. When Congress is told that the possible effects of a law, established as a bench mark by the White House, can't be discussed in an open session, it appears lying continues. Though bad publicity has led to a sudden distancing from the counter-insurgency program (which may be genuine or just words for show to try to clamp down on further discussions of the unethical nature of that program), counter-insurgency is turning a people against itself. Is the policy out of the White House truly as incompetent as we're led to believe? Or are the warring factions again being set up by the US and, if so, to justify continued involvement in Iraq? At this point, it's speculation as to why the US backed Shi'ite thugs from the start and then decided Sunni thugs should be armed and trained. But the US analysis of what de-de-Baathifcation, if implemented, will result in Iraq is being kept from the public. The American people have a right to know not only because they are footing the bill for the illegal war but also because the White House has defined it as a benchmark to measure success. Democrats in Congress should be insisting that this analysis be made public because the law's been passed and if its implementation takes place under the next president (regardless of whom that president is) it could tie the US down in Iraq for many years to come.

The White House's desire for a longterm US presence in Iraq is not in doubt. That's what lies behind attempting to circumvent the Senate by calling a treaty a SOFA.

The peace movement in the US has largely collapsed/gone into hiding. It's been replaced with a dithering Cult of Barack. It's a crew not known for their thinking abilities (hence the reliance on hula hoops). But it does include Tom Hayden who may still have enough common sense to grasp the implications for the candidate he's supporting. If the White House knows that de-de-Baathification will lead to increased violence and if they sense that John McCain might lose the election (operating under the assumption -- which the Cult of Barack believes -- that the White House wants to see McCain elected), an "October Surprise" if McCain slips in the polling might include ordering Nouri to implement a strategy they know will result in chaos. A week or two of that in the lead up to the election could change the dynamics of the discussion (and Barack can't think on his feet) which could result in a strong move towards McCain. Translation, you need to start addressing the fact that the White House is hiding from the people an analysis of what happens if Baathists are allowed back in the government before it happens and not hope that the plan isn't implemented prior to the election. It's a lot easier to lay out the basics before it takes place than to try to do damage control after.

From Team Nader, we'll note "Call Barack Obama, E-mail Janet Brown Now:"

Okay, time for action.
The first Presidential debate is Friday.
And we're getting stonewalled.
They won't let Ralph Nader into the Presidential debates.
So, here's what we're going to do. It's a two step process. Step one -- call Barack Obama. Tell Obama he should demand that Ralph Nader be included in the debates. And step two -- e-mail the Commission on Presidential Debates. And let them know you are onto their game. Here are the details.
Step one:
Call Barack Obama at 866-675-2008.
Hit 6 to speak with a campaign volunteer.
Once connected, politely deliver the following message:
Hi, my name is ... I was wondering if Senator Obama, being a believer in equal opportunity and equal rights, could insist that Ralph Nader and other ballot qualified third party candidates be included in the upcoming Presidential debates? After all, Nader is on 45 state ballots. And he's polling well nationwide. And he could help Senator Obama challenge the corporate Republicans. True, Ralph would critique Senator Obama for his corporate ties also. But isn't that what democracy is about? Could you please leave this message for the campaign manager? Thank you.
Step two:
E-mail Janet Brown, the executive director of the Commission on Presidential Debates.
Here's a sample e-mail:
Dear Janet Brown: Greetings. You must be busy. Preparing for the first Presidential debate this Friday. So, I won't take much of your time. Just wanted to let you know that the American people were not born yesterday. We know the deal. Take that little private corporation that you run. Controlled by the two corporate parties. And funded by big business. For the purpose of excluding independent minded candidates. Friday, two Wall Street candidates are scheduled to be in the ring. Barack Obama and John McCain. The one candidate who represents the American people, Main Street, if you will, will be on the outside looking in. So, here's a simple request. Drop your exclusionary restrictions. And let Ralph Nader into the debates. It will be good for your conscience. Good for the American people. (I believe it was The League of Women Voters that called your corporatized debates "campaign-trail charades devoid of substance, spontaneity, and honest answers to tough questions.") And good for democracy. Let the American people have a real debate for once. Main Street vs. Wall Street. Thank you. Signed your name.
Onward to November
The Nader Team



The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.

iraq
michael barnes
agustin aguayo
stephen fortunato
george bryson
mcclatchy newspapers
the los angeles times
tina susman
the new york times
michael gordon
erica goode